Volume 18, No.. 5 September/October 1999 Gazette

Volume 18, No.. 5 September/October 1999

Gazette

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE REGISTRAR, PEO

Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario In the matter of a complaint

regarding the conduct of

John L. Monkman, P.Eng.

a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario

Decision and Reasons-Stipulated Order

The Complaints Com-

mittee, in accordance with

Section 24 of the Profes-

sional Engineers Act (Act),

referred the above-noted

matter to be dealt with by

way of a Stipulated Order.

In accordance with the

Stipulated Order process,

Jag Mohan, P.Eng., a

member of the Discipline

Committee (Discipline

Committee member) of the

Association of Professional

Engineers of Ontario (PEO)

was selected to represent

the Discipline Committee.

After reviewing the com-

plaint and other related

information, he met with

John Monkman, P.Eng.

(member), on July 3, 1998,

to allow an opportunity for

the member to offer an

explanation and/or defense

for his actions and conduct.

The complaint alleged

that Monkman offered and

provided

professional

engineering services for

three projects in the Ottawa

area, while not a holder of a

Certificate

of

Authorization (C of A).

These projects comprised

two barns and one riding

arena. With respect to the

barn projects, Monkman

sealed drawings prepared

by Empire Builders, which

may have been included as

part of a building permit

application. With respect

to the riding arena project,

the local township chief

building official noted

deficiencies

after

construction of the arena

was completed, and

advised the owner that the

services of a professional

engineer were required to

review and accept the

structure, in order for the

owner to continue to use

the structure. Monkman

was retained to inspect the

arena and provide general

review of the design

changes.

In the meeting with

Monkman,

Mohan

reminded Monkman that

this was his opportunity to

offer an explanation

and/or defence for his

actions and conduct, and

that if he disagreed and

did not accept the

Stipulated Order, the

matter would proceed to a

full Discipline Hearing

before a Discipline Panel

of the Discipline

Committee.

In providing an

explanation, the member

stated that:

(1) The services that he

had provided were

professional engineering

services;

(2) He is now aware that a

C of A is required in order

to provide professional

engineering services to the

public, but has no desire to

offer

professional

engineering services to the

public, and will avoid

getting a C of A;

(3) The penalties for

offering

professional

engineering services to the

public without a C of A

were intimidating, and

were a factor in his not

wishing to practice

professional engineering;

(4) He did not intend to

harm PEO, did not intend

to misrepresent himself or

his services to his clients,

and did not solicit clients.

He provided his services to

family and friends;

(5) He advises all his

clients that he does not

carry professional liability

insurance;

(6) He belongs to a

community group, and

believes that he was

obliged to provide these

social services. His

remuneration for these

services was minimal;

(7) He believes that the

township

employs

technicians

and/or

technologists, that the

township is not aware of

the requirement that a

professional engineer be a

holder of a C of A, and that

it may not be important to

the township to ensure that

the individual holds a C of

A. His clients also were not

aware of his need for a C of

A in order to offer

professional engineering

services to the public;

(8) He is a capable

professional engineer who

knows his limitations, and

would hire other

professional engineers, if

required;

(9) He no longer uses his

seal, and has ceased

providing professional

engineering services. This

presents a dilemma, as the

township has requested that

he act as an expert witness.

When he does, he will be

acting as an expert witness

as "John Monkman,

BASc", not "John

Monkman, P.Eng.";

(10) His community is a

farming one, and he is not

involved with any

design/build projects. Most

of his projects are housing

related, which does not

require sealing or pole

barns; and

(11) He does not provide

general review of

construction and, if he

does, it is only for friends.

The

Discipline

Committee member con-

sidered the available

information and the

explanations

from

Monkman, and found the

following information to be

significant:

(1) Monkman resides in a

rural community in which

the local authorities having

jurisdiction did not appear

to be aware of the

requirement that a

professional engineer hold

a C of A in order to offer professional engineering services to the public; (2) Monkman, a PEO member, also was not aware of the requirement for a C of A, and admitted to being ignorant of this requirement; (3) The local authorities having jurisdiction appear to value Monkman's engineering capabilities; (4) Monkman was aware of the matter of professional liability, as he advised his clients that he did not carry professional liability insurance; (5) His projects were mostly farming buildings (pole barns) and housing; and (6) He was cooperative and provided information openly and willingly.

Based upon the foregoing, the parties have agreed that there was a basis for concluding that there were breaches of professional misconduct, and have agreed in the Stipulated Order to the following:

That Monkman is guilty of professional misconduct in that he breached sections of Ontario Regulation 941,

specifically:

Section 72 (2)(a):

Negligence, in that the

member acted in a

manner and made

omissions in the carrying

out of work that

constituted a failure to

maintain the standards

that a reasonable and

prudent practitioner

would maintain in the

circumstances.

The member failed to

maintain the standards that

a reasonable and prudent

practitioner

would

maintain in the circum-

stances.

Section

72(2)(g):

Breach of the Pro-

fessional Engineers Act

or Regulation 941 other

than an action that is

solely a breach of the

Code of Ethics.

The member provided

professional engineering

services to the public

while not the holder of a

Certificate

of

Authorization.

The following Order

has been offered by the

Discipline Committee

member and has been

agreed to by the parties:

1. That the licence of

John 1. Monkman,

P.Eng., be suspended for

a period of six months.

2, That the imposition of

the suspension be

suspended provided that,

within a period of 12

months of this Order,

Monkman attend and

pass the Professional

Practice Examination

(PPE).

3. That the Decision and

Reasons

Stipulated

Order, be published in

full in the official journal

of the association, without

reference to names, but

with dates and location.

4. If at the end of the 12

months, Monkman has

not attended and passed

the PPE, that the six-

month suspension of

Monkman's

licence

commence and that the

Decision and Reasons-

Stipulated Order, be

published in full in the

official journal of the

association with reference

to dates, location and

Monkman's name only

(not the name of the

projects).

Dated this 28th day of July 1998 Jag Mohan, P.Eng. (Discipline Committee member)

Note from Department of Legal and Professional Affairs

John Monkman did not sit the Professional Practice Examination as required by the Stipulated Order, with the result that his licence was suspended for six months, effective July 28, 1999.

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download